Another nude Jesus. The Brooklyn Museum of Art is at it again. No, it's not elephant dung and porn photos on the Virgin Mary. This time it's a naked female Jesus at the Last Supper. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took the bait and called for a decency commission. Better to let it go, or next year the museum will come back with a statue of Jesus as O. J. Simpson in drag or a painting of Mary as a WWF wrestler. The demeaning of Christian symbols is a mainstream activity in our art world. Nude female images of Jesus are old hat in this game. So are sendups of the Last Supper. Many versions are available, including one with Jesus and the Apostles as dogs and another featuring Jesus as Mrs. Butterworth, the syrup lady. Are these feeble blasphemies political acts by the massively untalented? Oh, no. They're art.

Eminem. A new Eminem problem confronts the cultural left: He may represent the crude beginning of a big backlash among the young, not against gains by women and gays but against the regime of political correctness. Students in high school and college face the most politically repressive atmosphere America has seen in almost 50 years. Jokes, rumors, questions in class, comments by teachers are all tightly monitored. That work is accomplished by the use of speech and behavior codes, zero-tolerance policies, heavy indoctrination at freshman orientation, and the sexual harassment police. Everybody knows that teenagers are apt to rebel. Why hasn't it occurred to people that they might want to rebel against the smog of orthodoxy that hangs over their schools? Eminem's fans include millions of young people who clearly aren't interested in hating women or gays. But they may be thrilled that he can get away with breathtakingly unorthodox (though stupid) opinions and force the Establishment to give him awards for it too. If so, the backlash against PC may be less dependent on the Bill Bennetts and Irving Kristols than on a musically talented dolt who thinks he should have killed his mother.

Hannibal Lecter, romantic hero. The makers of the movie Hannibal had the wit to swerve away from the nihilistic ending of Thomas Harris's book. (FBI agent Clarice Starling runs off and finds happiness as Lecter's lover.) But they didn't swerve all that far. The movie's view of Hannibal is similar to the view many journalists had of the Unabomber: Sure, blowing people up (or eating them) isn't a defensible activity, but still he's a pretty riveting fellow who lives by his principles. One of Hannibal's major principles is that he prefers to eat only rude people. Yes, he has some off-putting moments in the film. He cuts open the head of a living federal agent and feeds him his own brains. But in the end, he's a noble, self-sacrificing fellow who is so fond of Clarice that he doesn't even eat her. Lecter is something like Heathcliff, stormy and controversial, maybe, but darned attractive. We end up rooting for him. Memo to Producer Dino de Laurentiis and Director Ridley Scott: Stop now, before you film again.

The Marquis de Sade, romantic hero.Quills, Philip Kaufman's film about de Sade, drew an Oscar nomination for best actor (Geoffrey Rush). It is also a contender for most perverse movie (no statuette given). In real life, de Sade was a monster who liked to beat and rape women. He was a dedicated pedophile who strongly recommended incest (it "should be the law of every government whose basis is fraternity"). De Sade abused, raped, and tortured seven or eight young servant girls and kept them captive so they couldn't testify about his crimes. So naturally in the Hollywood version he is an attractive and essentially harmless fellow of principle whose main problem was censorship by a corrupt Establishment. Jonathan Last, in a review in the Weekly Standard, notes that the good and decent men who oversaw de Sade at the asylum of Charenton, a priest and a doctor, are presented as the real perverts. Last says that an old Hollywood standby has been imposed on the material: "The proponents of free sex are the enlightened forces of truth and happiness, while the opponents are the repressed forces of darkness and misery." In an interview, Kaufman pointed out that the doctor's character bears a resemblance to Kenneth Starr. No surprise there. Somehow we always knew that if Hollywood did the life of de Sade, he would be the hero and the villain would turn out to be Ken Starr.

This raises a big question. If a sympathetic case can be made for Hannibal and de Sade, is there anyplace where the Hollywood culture will draw a moral line? The good news is yes, there is. In her column of February 15, Liz Smith writes that actress Sharon Lawrence's career was nearly ruined when her photo appeared in People magazine on the same page as President Bush's. She was mistaken for a Republican! Hate mail poured in. Producers became unsympathetic. The town's moral code was exerting itself. "There can be an excluding reaction and people generally resent you," Lawrence said in a quavering voice. No problem. Smith cleared the poor woman's damaged reputation, writing for all to see that "Sharon Lawrence is not a Republican." Whew. Now, what about Hannibal–feeding folks their own brains is one thing, but what if he voted for
Bush?

02/20/01: When perfectly reasonable principles are carried too far02/13/01: Bill and Hill are pills02/06/01: Partner hopping 01/30/01: Sensitivity police 01/22/01: Found in the White House dumpster on Jan. 20, 200101/16/01: New slogan belies what the Army really is01/08/01: The black dissent01/03/01: The year's best quips on life, politics  and golf12/19/00: Supreme confusion12/11/00: Racial rhetoric conveniently ignores election facts12/05/00: Savage fantasy11/27/00: Victims of the year get the recognition they deserve11/20/00: It's a chad, chad, chad, chad world11/13/00: The election rhetoric is running much too high11/07/00: How yesterday's hero becomes tomorrow's heel10/30/00: Would Bush's Supreme Court picks make a difference?10/24/00: Yankees, go home!10/17/00: Un-American activity?10/10/00: A tempest in an ink pot10/03/00: The Al Gore quiz09/26/00: The sleeper effect09/19/00: Baby-saving made easy09/12/00: Line between reporting and editorializing continues to blur09/05/00: In the key of F08/29/00: Hollywood connection08/22/00: Some friendly advice to the GOP08/15/00: You can't make this up 08/08/00: The niceness strategy08/01/00: When rules don't count07/25/00: Anti-male bias increasingly pervades our culture07/18/00: Banned in Boston07/12/00: What Jacoby had to deal with!07/11/00: Will boys be boys? 07/05/00: Partial-sense decision 06/27/00: Attitude toward death penalty gets in the way of facts 06/20/00: Double troubles06/13/00: Fools paradise06/06/00: Accidental conspirator05/30/00: Faking the hate05/23/00: Was it law or poetry?05/16/00: Here, there and everywhere, people have gone bonkers 05/09/00: Tufts evangelicals are punished for acting on their beliefs 05/02/00: Elian's opera isn't over until nearly everyone sings 04/25/00: All the news that fits: The media serve up many stories from a standard script04/19/00: Those darned readers: The gap between reporters and the general public is huge04/05/00: Census sense and nonsense03/29/00: Hollywood message films leave no room for other views03/22/00: The Vatican confesses, but is it enough? 03/14/00: Watch what you say: The left can no longer be counted on to defend free speech 03/07/00: McCain's malleable messages 03/01/00: Bush's appearance at Bob Jones U. will dog him all the way02/23/00: 'Multi-millionaire' show is new evidence we're insane